AI
Thursday, July 16, 2015 11:12:28 AM
I have a different perspective on the company / shareholder relationship. I understand your thought of the company "doing for" the shareholders. For a small cap OTC....relative start up jr mining company... Any investment here should be viewed as a gamble at giving them a shot to succeed/produce.
I could list recent accomplishments, changes in approach, handling of information, etc.... but its all stuff that has been beat to death on this board. No one is changing their view.... so why just keep making the same case to the same people.... for what amounts to the same result (ie....NONE)?
If you would indulge me and for arguments sake assume that SNEY is an upstanding, of high integrity, legitimate company trying to establish their company. There is no guarantee of success, in fact, failure is more likely than success...statistics prove that in the states with start ups. Now, consider what this assumed legitimate company's record might look like if it fails to "make it"..... well.... it would look like they had a tone of money thrown into it....that they obviously did not produce the revenue necessary to sustain itself..... probably a lot of adaptations to a business plan in an effort to right the ship.... Looking for ways to utilize what resources they have in order to remain afloat....and I would aspect optimism throughout otherwise you would just give up.
None of which gives truth to the idea of it being a "scam" or dishonest.
my point is that the results of a legitimate company that goes through typical struggles will paint a not so pretty picture.... but it doesn't make it a con game.
And anyone who does not see this as a gamble is fooling themselves. But just because one person thinks its ridiculous to roll the dice on it doesn't mean the guy who lets it ride is thoughtless.
Its a gamble.... you bet at your comfort level.
I like to have fun with this (as with all aspects of life) but like I've said.... I play this thing straight. I'm not much for riding the swinging pendulum of one extreme to the other.
I could list recent accomplishments, changes in approach, handling of information, etc.... but its all stuff that has been beat to death on this board. No one is changing their view.... so why just keep making the same case to the same people.... for what amounts to the same result (ie....NONE)?
If you would indulge me and for arguments sake assume that SNEY is an upstanding, of high integrity, legitimate company trying to establish their company. There is no guarantee of success, in fact, failure is more likely than success...statistics prove that in the states with start ups. Now, consider what this assumed legitimate company's record might look like if it fails to "make it"..... well.... it would look like they had a tone of money thrown into it....that they obviously did not produce the revenue necessary to sustain itself..... probably a lot of adaptations to a business plan in an effort to right the ship.... Looking for ways to utilize what resources they have in order to remain afloat....and I would aspect optimism throughout otherwise you would just give up.
None of which gives truth to the idea of it being a "scam" or dishonest.
my point is that the results of a legitimate company that goes through typical struggles will paint a not so pretty picture.... but it doesn't make it a con game.
And anyone who does not see this as a gamble is fooling themselves. But just because one person thinks its ridiculous to roll the dice on it doesn't mean the guy who lets it ride is thoughtless.
Its a gamble.... you bet at your comfort level.
I like to have fun with this (as with all aspects of life) but like I've said.... I play this thing straight. I'm not much for riding the swinging pendulum of one extreme to the other.
/Risk/
noun
1.
a situation involving exposure to danger.
It is a risk to do math on a napkin because one might confuse a football field for a ping-pong table
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
